Jump to content

Entwicklungserie


The mere fact that these tanks require so much debate on even their basic characteristics is an indicator of why they should not be in game.

 

They weren't built. Until something is built, it cannot be certain it would go the way the paper says they would in a perfect world.

 

"But the Tiger 105 and Panther II!"

 

Should both be replaced as well. They aren't historical. The Leopard Prototypes can somewhat fill in for their tiers.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If E-50 and E-75 will be in game,they will almost look like stock tanks from WoT?And if you think about it,why create new turret for E-50 when you can use turret from KT?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

I do have a question about the glacis. I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the Upper Front Glacis wasn’t to be either 160 or 180mm. This never made sense to me considering the weight and turret armor, but I figured 150 or 160 was a reasonable value considering all we’ve discussed and the developments being made at the time. I’m perfectly fine with 140mm, I’d just like to know where you got the value.

I got the 140mm value from measuring armor thickness on preliminary drawing. I know this isn't the best and most accurate way of doing this but everything else makes sense. For example front lower plate is 100mm @ 50° , rear is 80mm @ 30°.

 

Preliminary drawing:

aNNe6Wy.jpg

 

Actually one thing did confuse me. Angle of the front upper plate could be 62 instead of 60. Atleast it seems to be consistent between the Adler drawings while the very early E 50/75 drawing has upper plate at 60 degree angle.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

The mere fact that these tanks require so much debate on even their basic characteristics is an indicator of why they should not be in game.

 

They weren't built. Until something is built, it cannot be certain it would go the way the paper says they would in a perfect world.

 

"But the Tiger 105 and Panther II!"

 

Should both be replaced as well. They aren't historical. The Leopard Prototypes can somewhat fill in for their tiers.

 

The point here is that, while the Tiger 105 and Panther II were never built or even acceptable to the Heer as they are in-game, they are still real designs. The Tiger 105 in game is historical, but would not have been accepted by the army, which is why it was never built. The Panther II is more accurate, and there was one time a suggestion of the Kwk43, but this too was rejected. The thing to grasp from this is that both these tanks were real, but were never built as they are in WT and there are a few changes made for the game because there is a lack of info on the real designs (I.e Schmalturm dimensions, armor, etc)

The same issue is present for the E 50/75, but we have better indication that these designs were on their way to prototype and production in the forms discussed here. We have more than enough information to implement these tanks just as accurately as the Tiger 105 and Panther II, and since they are already in the game, why not give a more realistic set of vehicles?

5 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

I got the 140mm value from measuring armor thickness on preliminary drawing. I know this isn't the best and most accurate way of doing this but everything else makes sense. For example front lower plate is 100mm @ 50° , rear is 80mm @ 30°.

 

Preliminary drawing:

aNNe6Wy.jpg

 

Actually one thing did confuse me. Angle of the front upper plate could be 62 instead of 60. Atleast it seems to be consistent between the Adler drawings while the very early E 50/75 drawing has upper plate at 60 degree angle.

Interesting... the Adler concepts are certainly the better between the two, and were the ones put forward for development. Though I can’t recall any instances of the Germans using any angles for the main plates that weren’t multiples of 5, 10, etc.

60 seems more reasonable to me... 62 wouldn’t give much more benefit and would cramp up the front even more. 280-320 (depending on 140, 150, or 160) effectiveness is quite sufficient, though I wonder if the turret would’ve needed updating. I’d suspect an increase of the face armor to 200, but this is only speculation. Personally, I think 140 or 150 makes more sense for the glacis. Particularly 140 because of the measurement you made as well as the cost and weight reduction while still improving the effectiveness by ~47mm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

The mere fact that these tanks require so much debate on even their basic characteristics is an indicator of why they should not be in game.

 

They weren't built. Until something is built, it cannot be certain it would go the way the paper says they would in a perfect world.

 

"But the Tiger 105 and Panther II!"

 

Should both be replaced as well. They aren't historical. The Leopard Prototypes can somewhat fill in for their tiers.

 

I thought this was just a discussion about the Entwicklung series, not about implementing them in game

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, __Herr__ said:

 

The point here is that, while the Tiger 105 and Panther II were never built or even acceptable to the Heer as they are in-game, they are still real designs. The Tiger 105 in game is historical, but would not have been accepted by the army, which is why it was never built. The Panther II is more accurate, and there was one time a suggestion of the Kwk43, but this too was rejected. The thing to grasp from this is that both these tanks were real, but were never built as they are in WT and there are a few changes made for the game because there is a lack of info on the real designs (I.e Schmalturm dimensions, armor, etc)

The same issue is present for the E 50/75, but we have better indication that these designs were on their way to prototype and production in the forms discussed here. We have more than enough information to implement these tanks just as accurately as the Tiger 105 and Panther II, and since they are already in the game, why not give a more realistic set of vehicles?

Interesting... the Adler concepts are certainly the better between the two, and were the ones put forward for development. Though I can’t recall any instances of the Germans using any angles for the main plates that weren’t multiples of 5, 10, etc.

60 seems more reasonable to me... 62 wouldn’t give much more benefit and would cramp up the front even more. 280-320 (depending on 140, 150, or 160) effectiveness is quite sufficient, though I wonder if the turret would’ve needed updating. I’d suspect an increase of the face armor to 200, but this is only speculation. Personally, I think 140 or 150 makes more sense for the glacis. Particularly 140 because of the measurement you made as well as the cost and weight reduction while still improving the effectiveness by ~47mm

that's true, regarding about the historically correct papers...

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

Though I can’t recall any instances of the Germans using any angles for the main plates that weren’t multiples of 5, 10, etc.

That is what they usually prefered on bigger slopes.

 

But for example Panthers turret front plate is angled at 12 degrees. And that is written on the blueprints. Also not uncommon to see 8 degrees on Panzer IV's etc. Even the E 10 and E 25 have some weird angles. 33 and 52 degrees.

 

12 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

60 seems more reasonable to me... 62 wouldn’t give much more benefit and would cramp up the front even more. 280-320 (depending on 140, 150, or 160) effectiveness is quite sufficient, though I wonder if the turret would’ve needed updating. I’d suspect an increase of the face armor to 200, but this is only speculation. Personally, I think 140 or 150 makes more sense for the glacis. Particularly 140 because of the measurement you made as well as the cost and weight reduction while still improving the effectiveness by ~47mm

I can't say for certain why it is at 62 degrees on the drawing but I have a theory.

 

Considered that highly angled plates can vary in angle because of manufacturing tolerances, +/- 1-2 degrees is common, so they maybe wanted to compensate that by angling the upper plate 2 degrees more as maybe having the armor sloped at 60+ degree angle had benefits that were lost below 60 degree angle? Like having significantly higher chance to richochet enemy rounds etc.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

which is why it was never built. 

 

but were never built 

 

We have more than enough information to implement these tanks

 

These lines are the reason why not.

 

If it wasn't built, you cannot say that it would have turned out like paper says it would. You might say "It'll have this and this and it'll totally work like this!" in as much detail as you want.

 

But until you start welding metal, you have no idea how those plans are going to have to change, and what needs to be lessened, increased or changed to make the eventual vehicle functional. Basing in game vehicles on what a sheet of paper says it would be, but without the proof of having actually shown it will work, is a massive mistake in game, both for existing vehicles, and for proposed ones.

 

Stick to what was actually built and proved it could be built.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 6:08 AM, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

These lines are the reason why not.

 

If it wasn't built, you cannot say that it would have turned out like paper says it would. You might say "It'll have this and this and it'll totally work like this!" in as much detail as you want.

 

But until you start welding metal, you have no idea how those plans are going to have to change, and what needs to be lessened, increased or changed to make the eventual vehicle functional. Basing in game vehicles on what a sheet of paper says it would be, but without the proof of having actually shown it will work, is a massive mistake in game, both for existing vehicles, and for proposed ones.

 

Stick to what was actually built and proved it could be built.

 

Yes, I understand that paper is not always accurate, but in this case, because the paper is so similar to existing vehicles, and considering the info we have (and the ability to perform simple calculus), it isn’t that hard to tell what would have “worked” or needed revision. If you can find me something that makes these vehicles impossible as they are proposed, some design flaw or inconsistency that needs revision, or anything else of the sort, I’m happy to listen... but for these tanks, because they are simplified versions of existing vehicles, rather than completely new designs (among other reasons), the math can speak for itself. I’ve found no reason (tangible or logical) for the designs to have changed in any significance from the original concept. 

 

To be frank, every vehicle in War Thunder is based on “paper” saying “this worked like this.” The only difference being that most of the ones in-game have supposedly done everything on the paper. Combat situations, human error, and an infinite number of factors can impact the “stats” in the game. What if the loader drops a shell? What if he’s tired? What about force it takes for a person to shift a gear or rotate a wheel? There are a million “what-ifs” that aren’t addressed in War Thunder.

 

By similar logic to what you’re claiming (if I understand correctly), I could go and tell the engineers at Porsche that they can’t possibly estimate how next year’s 911 model will perform because it’s only a design and hasn’t been welded yet.

 

War Thunder, being a game, is based entirely on estimations. Reload times? Estimated. Acceleration? Estimated or averaged based on test results. 

 

I understand and what you are trying but to say, and I do agree in certain aspects, but I don’t think that it holds significant impact for this particular topic simply because we have more than enough information to calculate or infer from context how these vehicles were to be built and how they were to perform. If a document shows up ten years from now that goes against all of this, ok then, but the same thing can happen to any vehicle in WT, and WT isn’t always 100% accurate even with vehicles that not only were built but were in production and combat (Maus turret armor for example).

 

thanks for reading another text wall XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/843

 

. Will the Е-100 be the only tank of the E-series?

snail_w.png Answer: Yes, we don’t plan to add or create any other E-series vehicles. From the E-series, the only value lies with the E-100, because the other projects, the E-50 and E-75 had similar characteristics to the Panther and Tiger II (combat weight, weaponry, armour). Thus they were not constructed in any form at all, as opposed to E-100, which was designed and built to a fairly advanced state.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Philip8 said:

https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/843

 

. Will the Е-100 be the only tank of the E-series?

snail_w.png Answer: Yes, we don’t plan to add or create any other E-series vehicles. From the E-series, the only value lies with the E-100, because the other projects, the E-50 and E-75 had similar characteristics to the Panther and Tiger II (combat weight, weaponry, armour). Thus they were not constructed in any form at all, as opposed to E-100, which was designed and built to a fairly advanced state.

 

“...built to a fairly advanced state”... hahahahahahahaha

 

they built the hull, and suspension, but not the engine, transmission, tracks, or turret... SO ADVANCED!! At least the VK.30.01(H) and VK.36.01(H) could move under their own power... 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

“...built to a fairly advanced state”... hahahahahahahaha

 

they built the hull, and suspension, but not the engine, transmission, tracks, or turret... SO ADVANCED!! At least the VK.30.01(H) and VK.36.01(H) could move under their own power... 

 

That is pretty advanced compared to the rest of the E series though.

  • Upvote 3
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that devblog post, but it’s, for lack of a better word, nonsense. They’ve already put several vehicles in the game that weren’t built. The Tiger 105 in-game was “not constructed in any form at all” and only the hull of the Panther II was constructed.... The turret mounting the 88mm cannon as presented in-game right now was “not constructed in any form at all” and wasn’t even drawn up as a design, unlike the hulls of the E 50/75. The 88 was a mere suggestion and was never put down for the prototype. 

 

With respect to the E 100, they hadn’t installed all the components, but they did indeed “build” them. The initial turret was the same as that of the Maus (the only reason it wasn’t installed is because the Maus vehicles were being constructed on the opposite end f the country). The engine was to be the HL234 (or HL230 if the 234 wasn’t ready in time), and the transmission was the same OLVAR B as the Tigers.

Edited by __Herr__

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Philip8 said:

https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/843

 

. Will the Е-100 be the only tank of the E-series?

snail_w.png Answer: Yes, we don’t plan to add or create any other E-series vehicles. From the E-series, the only value lies with the E-100, because the other projects, the E-50 and E-75 had similar characteristics to the Panther and Tiger II (combat weight, weaponry, armour). Thus they were not constructed in any form at all, as opposed to E-100, which was designed and built to a fairly advanced state.

They also said no atgms, no modern tanks, etc. They always break their rules of what not.

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

By similar logic to what you’re claiming (if I understand correctly), I could go and tell the engineers at Porsche that they can’t possibly estimate how next year’s 911 model will perform because it’s only a design and hasn’t been welded yet.

 

 

Then, I'm afraid you missed my "logic" entirely, sorry to have to say. :(

 

The simple point is that until something is actually built and functional, you have no idea what you might need to change or adjust in order to reach that stage. ALL designs, from ALL industries go through this process of change.

 

The E-50 and E-75 that would have been built would not be mm perfect to everything we see here from the plans. They would not have been hp/t perfect to everything we see here from the plans. They would not have have every soft stat to the individual number that we see here from the plans. These values WOULD change. Certainly in minor ways. Very likely in at least a couple of major ways.

 

We, Gaijin and anyone else cannot know how those plans would have turned out during the actual manufacturing process. Anybody in engineering can tell you that no original blueprint (ESPECIALLY from that era before CAD) survives manufacturing intact without modification in some way. It is not enough to base a vehicle on, because it has not actually shown it was going to be that way in reality.

 

Simply having all the dimensions, layouts and values is not enough to make a vehicle correctly. Those are only estimates and hopes until its been shown to be possible, which it wasn't shown for positive or negative. As such, it cannot be included in game beside vehicles that have been through that process when the object is to model REAL vehicles. Same reason the Tiger 105 and Panther II need to exit the game in place of real vehicles ASAP.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't have much else to say more than my last reply, just from my understanding the 50 and 75 were noever really defined properly, so it's all guessing and speculation, the 10 and 25 were instead in a more advanced state, possibly even had some hulls built according to some interrogations.

 

On 2/1/2018 at 10:20 PM, __Herr__ said:

The Panther II is more accurate, and there was one time a suggestion of the Kwk43, but this too was rejected.

 

Onto more specifi things, from what I have read the Panther II never was meant to get the 88, nor the Schmalturm, that was the F, so the Panther II in game is the least realistic, as in was never even envisioned by the germans during the war.
 

6 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

“...built to a fairly advanced state”... hahahahahahahaha

 

they built the hull, and suspension, but not the engine, transmission, tracks, or turret... SO ADVANCED!! At least the VK.30.01(H) and VK.36.01(H) could move under their own power... 

 

The transmission and engine were mounted, not the engine in game though, and many other components were in it too, the suspension and tracks were completely mounted by the british, and the tank may even have driven at some point as, and I can't find where I'd read this anymore, the tank was scrappen only in the '60 or '70. (btw 30.01 (H) when)

 

2 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

The initial turret was the same as that of the Maus (the only reason it wasn’t installed is because the Maus vehicles were being constructed on the opposite end f the country).

 

Not exactly true, no project, either Tiger-Maus or E-100 had the exact produced Maus turret, the Tiger-Maus and for a few wekks the E-100 had a similar looking one, but it was an earlier not built one with commander cupola, pistol ports, and back square hatch. The next turret that was assigned to the project was one looking like the Maus II turret, with thinner sides, in the timeframe where the built Maus turret design was used on the super heavy tanks projects the Tiger-Maus / E-100 was not active, so it never had it. Gaijin went the "what if" way and said the only way it realistically would have gotten a turret was if it was given one of the produced ones, and although realistic, as far as I'm aware it was not considered.

Edited by Chupambrico
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to add a blueprint tank to the game we only need to know the following:

  • What the hull and turret look like
  • What the armor layout is like
  • What engine and transmission it has
  • What gun it has

Everything else can be speculated or copied from other vehicles without any issues.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

In order to add a blueprint tank to the game we only need to know the following:

  • What the hull and turret look like
  • What the armor layout is like
  • What engine and transmission it has
  • What gun it has

Everything else can be speculated or copied from other vehicles without any issues.

 

No, that's not all that we need. We also need to know whether whats on the blueprint would have even worked in that manner.

 

It could be something as simple as "in the produced models the floor was 2mm thinner than planned", or it could have been something as major as "in the produced models, the required engine was not found to be compatible with the internal layout for maintenance and thus was replaced".

 

The point is you do not know what changes would have happened in translating these from paper intentions into actually functioning physical objects.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

No, that's not all that we need. We also need to know whether whats on the blueprint would have even worked in that manner.

 

It could be something as simple as "in the produced models the floor was 2mm thinner than planned", or it could have been something as major as "in the produced models, the required engine was not found to be compatible with the internal layout for maintenance and thus was replaced".

 

The point is you do not know what changes would have happened in translating these from paper intentions into actually functioning physical objects.

Hahaha! Thx for the good laugh!

  • Confused 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

No, that's not all that we need. We also need to know whether whats on the blueprint would have even worked in that manner.

 

It could be something as simple as "in the produced models the floor was 2mm thinner than planned", or it could have been something as major as "in the produced models, the required engine was not found to be compatible with the internal layout for maintenance and thus was replaced".

 

The point is you do not know what changes would have happened in translating these from paper intentions into actually functioning physical objects.

yeah. like the IS2 mod 44 we have ingame, preproduction series, instead of the full production series with a variation of 20mm to 30mm armour around the turret and hull

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

It could be something as simple as "in the produced models the floor was 2mm thinner than planned", or it could have been something as major as "in the produced models, the required engine was not found to be compatible with the internal layout for maintenance and thus was replaced".

 

What about “the guns desired could not fit in the desired turret, and thus were dropped”? 

 

‘Looks over at Tiger II (10,5)’... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

What about “the guns desired could not fit in the desired turret, and thus were dropped”? 

 

‘Looks over at Tiger II (10,5)’... 

Who said it did not fit in the turret?

Single piece ammo was too big for a single loader to load while two piece ammo was too slow to reload by one loader. Also turret itself and the turret ring were too small to have 2 loaders.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

What about “the guns desired could not fit in the desired turret, and thus were dropped”? 

 

‘Looks over at Tiger II (10,5)’... 

 

 

If you check back on my posts you'll see I am in favour of that being removed from the game and replaced with things that were actually built.

 

5 hours ago, zSektor92 said:

yeah. like the IS2 mod 44 we have ingame, preproduction series, instead of the full production series with a variation of 20mm to 30mm armour around the turret and hull

 

Then make a bug report about it and see about getting it fixed. One thing being wrong isn't an excuse to be MORE wrong. It means fix the one that's incorrect!

 

6 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

Hahaha! Thx for the good laugh!

 

As yes, I forgot German plans are apparently perfect and don't follow the same rules of reality every other engineering project in history went through, how silly of me. :D

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
  • Like 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

As yes, I forgot German plans are apparently perfect and don't follow the same rules of reality every other engineering project in history went through, how silly of me. :D

You do realise that this is a game, not real world?

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

You do realise that this is a game, not real world?

 

There are things that just didn't go according to the blueprints and would only show themselves through actual testing. In planes it would be stuff like the Me 209 and LaGG-3, and with tanks it could be things like the entire development history of the Tiger I. This would then affect the end product. Reading through detailed books showcasing the many concepts that were proposed will show how much can change between a concept and even the first prototype, including looks. And even between prototypes there could be a lot of changes, which is why some may not like the implementation of the E-100.

  • Thanks 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...